Talk:History: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Pat Palmer
(revised status to 2)
imported>Alexius Manfelt
(→‎Developed?: Annalists or others?)
Line 41: Line 41:


::I changed status to 2; when I added the Article Checklist, I didn't spend enough time looking at the article, but I do agree it needs more work, and keeping it at 2 encourages that.
::I changed status to 2; when I added the Article Checklist, I didn't spend enough time looking at the article, but I do agree it needs more work, and keeping it at 2 encourages that.
==Annalists==
I cant find any Annalist- Mentality- or Microhistorical chools nomination? --[[User:Alexius Manfelt|Alexius Manfelt]] 05:01, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 04:01, 24 May 2007


Article Checklist for "History"
Workgroup category or categories History Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? No
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by Pat Palmer 23:33, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





Are you planning to discuss other methods with the satisfying depth combined with concision you showed for Ibn Khaldun? Or do you propose him as the general model.DavidGoodman 20:56, 2 November 2006 (CST)

Reorganization

Shouldn't this entire entry be scrapped and re-conceived from the ground up? There is no generally recognized 'historical method'. There are people who think that there is a continuous tradition of historical 'thought' (such as Donald Kelley), but they essentially disregard economic history or other efforts to make history more continuous with the sciences. André Carus 02:50, 18 November 2006 (CST)


We should, because this is really a horrible article. I rewrote the opening paragraph to avoid it being re-imported. I'll suggest that a rewrite follow some sort of a plan. E.g.

  1. (Short) Etymology
  2. Materials used by historians (types of sources)
  3. Methods of analysing sources
  4. Types of historical descriptions (subject matter, scope, holistic and historicist approaches versus subject matter driven, etc.)
  5. Methods of relying the "narrative" (following a course of events, or following a development of some idea or approach)
  6. Approaches to valuing historical descriptions

Ori Redler 10:32, 18 November 2006 (CST)

Wikipedia credit

There is just one sentence that appear exactly the same in Wikipedia. Does it formally imply that we check "Wikipedia content" credit box? Looks like a joke? Hmmm... Maybe we just reword it? Here it goes:

  • The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write history.

--AlekStos 15:26, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Reword it. --Larry Sanger 11:49, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Developed?

Is this brief article about an enormous subject really "developed"? --Larry Sanger 11:49, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

I changed status to 2; when I added the Article Checklist, I didn't spend enough time looking at the article, but I do agree it needs more work, and keeping it at 2 encourages that.

Annalists

I cant find any Annalist- Mentality- or Microhistorical chools nomination? --Alexius Manfelt 05:01, 24 May 2007 (CDT)